[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I have to say I love the idea that terrorists are kickin’ back in their lounges and catching a bit of American domestic news.
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, they probably do watch al-Jazeera (when the power’s on), which probably does give a lot of coverage to American politics, especially WRT anything touching on Middle East policy.
RTF:
I do apologize for hijacking your thread. It was a real dick move. I didn’t mean to do it, just got rolling. Anyway, everybody seems to agree with your original premise, so at least I didn’t hijack a good debate.
It was still a dick move on my part though. I should have started my own thread. Sorry. And thanks for being nice about it.
I’ll try to post more later on yours and other’s responses.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
We are at war. We have to win.
[/QUOTE]
We are an occupying force during a civil war that came about because of our doing. Both sides want us to leave. That is a no win situation. No matter which way we turn, it is going to turn out bad. George Bush is right about one thing (Even a blind dog…). It is going to be a blood bath if we pull out. It should be pointed out, however, it is going to be a blood bath no matter what. We have set it up so that is unavoidable.
It should be pointed out even more that the dire consequences that so many are predicting if we pull out, the chaos and bloodshed and ethnic cleansing and Iranian control etc., are what’s happening already. By the very argument of the course-stayers themselves, we’ve lost already.
It isn’t about “winning” anymore, even if there were a useful definition of the term. It’s about what we can still salvage from this clusterfuck, if anything. We can still salvage our own troops’ lives, for one thing. But the shape of the future Iraq is no longer within our power to significantly influence, much less decide.
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Well in fact it does, what if the situation in Iraq improves, yet there are still the odd carbomings in Baghdad, if we gauge military/political effectiveness on the amount of carbombs, which can’t be reduced, then what’s the fomula for success if the benchmark is for 0% carbombings?
[/QUOTE]
Who said the formula for success is 0% carbombings?
If the average number of car bombings per month is dropping that is one metric that in conjunction with a bunch of other data can be used to measure progress. If it’s rising, that is one metric, which in conjunction with other data, can be used to measure a lack of progress.
I’ve already asked twice in this thread. What is the system you are using to measure progress and why don’t you want to include the number of car bombings in that measure?
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
The way to prevent militant Islam from destroying us was, is, and for years to come will be preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Our war in Iraq is neither here nor there with respect to that aim.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree.
The war in Iraq had **increased **the risk of nuclear proliferation. It has increased the liklihood of North Korea and Iran developing nukes. The invasion has radicalised many muslims and created many new enemies of the west. Many enemies that are more liklely to want to get their hand on a nuke and cause harm.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Do you think there’s any real chance that al Qaeda is going to destroy the US?
[/QUOTE]
This bears repeating. I’d be interested in hearing from **Scylla ** the nightmare scenario that Iraq is supposed to be protecting us against. “Militant Islam means to destroy us.” you said. How exactly? What chain of events will lead to our destruction?
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
You can plot trend lines and see which way the trends are going. So, what is your method of measuring progress in Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
That was half my job description over there. We used attacks broken down by type and weapons caches found/destroyed.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
What chain of events will lead to our destruction?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=antechinus]
I disagree.
The war in Iraq had **increased **the risk of nuclear proliferation. It has increased the liklihood of North Korea and Iran developing nukes. The invasion has radicalised many muslims and created many new enemies of the west. Many enemies that are more liklely to want to get their hand on a nuke and cause harm.
[/QUOTE]
And that changes the appropriate remedy how?
Sure, it makes nonproliferation a greater challenge than it would have been, had it been our first priority for the past five years. But I don’t see why it’s still not #1, #2, #3, etc. on the to-do list to keep us from being destroyed, regardless of the prospective destroyer.
Nukes are, now and for the foreseeable future, the only weapon capable of destroying our country. Period.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
RTF:
I do apologize for hijacking your thread. It was a real dick move. I didn’t mean to do it, just got rolling. Anyway, everybody seems to agree with your original premise, so at least I didn’t hijack a good debate.
It was still a dick move on my part though. I should have started my own thread. Sorry. And thanks for being nice about it.
[/QUOTE]
No biggie. Like I said in the Pit thread, if there was going to have been a real debate about my OP, it would have gotten underway before you posted last night. It didn’t, so no harm, no foul.
Just another damned Iraq thread. 
Scylla, I disagree with what you wrote. I think the first principle we need to look at is why we have American troops in Iraq. To topple Saddam Hussein? To dismantle Iraq’s WMD program? To make Iraq a democracy? To end terrorism? To bring peace to the Middle East? Some of those goals are accomplished. But I can’t think of any worthwhile goal that’s being accomplished by our troops being there now. Our troops are not going to bring peace or make democracy happen or make the Sunnis hug the Shi’a. And they’re not going to end terrorism - our presense in Iraq is making terrorism seem more attractive to Muslims and is distracting us from real ways to fight terrorists.
So the only thing that is being accomplished by our continued presense in Iraq is that the Bush administration doesn’t have to admit it’s a bad idea. And the price is too high - American troops are being killed in Iraq defending George Bush’s reputation.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
You’re going back to the wrong first principles. We’re not making war on another country, where ‘total war’ might lead to a quick, comparatively bloodless victory. We actually had that war, back in March and April of 2003. We won it.
We’re no longer making war on the Iraqi people, or even on some reasonably well-defined subset of the Iraqi people. If we were, then your principles might be worth something.
[/quote]
This is a good point. Fortunately for me, it’s also one I’ve considered. What we are actually at war with is terrorism in the form of militant Islam, Al Quaeda, and related organizations, who have largely been successful because they’ve worked outside of the Nation vs. Nation paradigm.
By going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush, it seems, is trying to force them back into that paradigm. In this regard Iraq is not so important as Iraq but as the removal of a potential ally and a beachhead for Democracy versus terror and an attempt to bring the terror conflict down to a more conventional territorial war. He’s trying to take territory and force new rules of conduct that will make terror unviable.
I’m not saying this so you can argue back why it won’t work. I’m saying that because that’s what I think Bush is trying to do. That’s his strategy.
Having forced the issue for right or wrong into a more conventional war, we now have to fight it that way.
Yes. To take it a step further, the real goal is not merely a self-sustaining nation, but a beachhead and an ally that makes a contribution and puts pressure on the real enemy.
You go one outlining many of the difficulties and problems of the current situation in Iraq, and I find your outline fairly reasonable. You conclude that these difficulties make the situation so untenable that giving up is the better choice.
What you haven’t addressed are the consequences of giving up. There seems to be agreement that the current government would collapse and everything would revert to chaos if we left. Earlier you stated that much was preferable to chaos, and I tend to agree. Besides the consequences to the Iraqi people, I think that such chaos would ultimately lead to a radical fundamentalist Iraq which would end up being a formidable enemy to us.
There is another reasona why we must succeed and I’ll address that in my next response. Your post leads into it.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
OK, let’s deal with the “Militant Islam means to destroy us” trope.
Intent is all well and good, but one needs the means to realize one’s intent. I might have the intent of levelling the Rockies, but I lack the means. Nobody needs to counter me.
The only way that militant Islam can even do major damage to us, let alone destroy us, is via nuclear weapons. The solution? I remember the last debate between Bush and Kerry in 2004. Kerry was asked what the greatest threat was in the world today. He answered, “Nuclear proliferation.” Exactly.
The way to prevent militant Islam from destroying us was, is, and for years to come will be preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Our war in Iraq is neither here nor there with respect to that aim.
[/QUOTE]
I strongly agree with everything you said. The problem is that you said “for years to come.”
I don’t think we can put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Technology and progress march on. As they march on it becomes easier and easier to acquire nuclear weapons. Proliferation is the problem, but nonprolifertion is not the solution. We simply can’t stop people from acquiring nukes. With progress and technology nukes have gone from the provence of superpowers to medium size nations to smaller and smaller nations. Soon the technology will be within the grasp of even the smallest and poorest of countries, and then organizations within those countries.
We can slow it down, but eventually everybody is going to have nukes.
In the current paradigm it is just a matter of time until nukes get into the hands of someone who is willing to use them against us. The only to avoid getting hit is not to try to retard proliferation but to put an end to that willingness.
Iraq is an attempt to wipe out those organizations that will be so willing by taking their their territory, and alerting other nations that they must be proactive in destroying such.
An alternate strategy that I read about is kind of interesting. In a book called “Wildfire” Nelson Demille writes fictionally about a scenario that he claims may actually exist… or at least should.
“Wildfire” is Mutually Assured Destruction for militant Islam. The “Wildfire” scenario is that we have alerted all the governments of the Islamic world that the US’s automatic respons to a nuclear weapon going off in one of our cities is to totally anhiliate the entire Islamic world with nukes. Every country, every city.
Actual genocide.
I don’t think it works. I don’t think they can police themselves enough to prevent it. I don’t think holding the entire Middle East hostage and responsible for a fanatic majority is appropriate. I think somebody else could initiate the wildfire response for their own purposes. I think it’s a bad idea.
I think installing self-policing democracies is a better idea.
Do you really think nonproliferating is going to work long term? If you do, let’s argue it.
If you don’t, what strategy would you recommend that prevents us from getting hit with nukes by terrorist organizations and terrorist sympathetic countries down the road when technology puts nukes in the hands of everybody?
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
The only way that militant Islam can even do major damage to us, let alone destroy us, is via nuclear weapons. The solution? I remember the last debate between Bush and Kerry in 2004. Kerry was asked what the greatest threat was in the world today. He answered, “Nuclear proliferation.” Exactly.
[/QUOTE]
I think you are totally incorrect with this statement. Nuclear weapons are not the only way we can be hurt. So much of our infrastructure is centralized. It’s a matter of hitting us at a few key points.
A total war military solution is completely untenable. To win this war we need to strip our military of a lot of its pork barrel bloat and start training smash and grab teams, translators and work on our ability to get teams to any city in the world within a couple of hours. Remove the heavy military presence from most of the world, disappear into the background and work on a faster mobilization structure.
Nuclear proliferation is a grave threat, but it’s probably not the number 1 threat. Decentralized insurgencies are the gravest threat. Colombian/Mexican drug cartels. Transnational American gangs like Mara Salvatrucha. The threat to our way of life is intertwined with globalization. Demographic decline and increased cross border traffic are the big issues.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
To be fair, they probably do watch al-Jazeera (when the power’s on), which probably does give a lot of coverage to American politics, especially WRT anything touching on Middle East policy.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t disagree that a lot of people would have a general idea of American politics. I just think that the average terrorist has about the same amount of knowledge of American politics as the average American does of al Quaeda et al organisational structure.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
By going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush, it seems, is trying to force them back into that paradigm. In this regard Iraq is not so important as Iraq but as the removal of a potential ally and a beachhead for Democracy versus terror and an attempt to bring the terror conflict down to a more conventional territorial war.
[/QUOTE]
Democracy and terror are not opponents, nor opposites. Democracy and terror can live side by side, and in fact frequently do.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
If you don’t, what strategy would you recommend that prevents us from getting hit with nukes by terrorist organizations and terrorist sympathetic countries down the road when technology puts nukes in the hands of everybody?
[/QUOTE]
There is only one sure-fire way to do this, that I know of. Nuke them now. And then ourselves. Genocide is way too small scale - what we need is total or near-total human extinction.
But a more palatable response might be; let’s look at the problem. People hate us (Well, you more. But me also ;)). We could kill them all; no people to hate. We could install democracies; except democracies represent the people. That doesn’t remove the problem. And the actual installation also tends to cause a bit of outrage. Really, the only thing going for this plan is the reason you used; it’s better than genocide.
Ok, new plan. We let them nuke us. Problem, of course, is that that would be genocide in the opposite direction. People are still killed, so really it’s just a equally poor solution. We could gamble that they won’t have nukes of that level, or that we’ll be able to find them or the plot in time. Again, not all that good a plan.
What if instead of focusing on one part of the problem, we look at the other. There are people who hate us. We’ve tried to get rid of the people, and that isn’t working all that well. How about we get rid of the hate? How about, instead of making sure they don’t lob their (apparently inevitable) nukes at us, we make sure they don’t *want * to? Seems to me that could work. The stick isn’t working, as you point out. Let’s try the carrot. And hey, if it doesn’t work, at least we can all die horribly and know we were in the right.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Democracy and terror are not opponents, nor opposites. Democracy and terror can live side by side, and in fact frequently do.
[/QUOTE]
I’m guessing you’re married 
Hey, i’m still a student. Far too young. Besides, from what I hear, that’s more along the lines of your typical fascist dictatorship. 
[QUOTE=Scylla]
In the current paradigm it is just a matter of time until nukes get into the hands of someone who is willing to use them against us. The only to avoid getting hit is not to try to retard proliferation but to put an end to that willingness.
Iraq is an attempt to wipe out those organizations that will be so willing by taking their their territory, and alerting other nations that they must be proactive in destroying such.
[/QUOTE]
This is the year 2007, Scylla. Iraq had no means of acquiring the technology needed for the aquisition of nuclear weapons without making waves in the international intelligence community. They were in a cage. If things continue to spiral in Iraq we may end up with a theocratic Islamic regime instead of a secular one which, if nothing else, could at least be predictable if they were somehow able to get nukes via magic.
Now, if we’re worried about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of crazies we should be worried about Pakistan. Musharraf has been the target of numerous assassination attempts and is lucky to still be with us. I’m sure we have plans to invade Pakistan from Afghanistan if something bad goes down but Iraq only hurts us in this effort by drawing away so many resources.
We should also be worried about Russia. I think we’re still helping them with security but something tells me we could be doing more. It’d also probably be a good idea to make sure their former nuclear scientists are comfortable, if you get my drift.
Thing is, for the long term, we’re going to have to use ‘sissy’ stuff like diplomacy and foreign aid for the most part. We’re also going to have to stop being insane – witness the current fascination with Iran in our media and even Dem leaders, totally opposite of all known facts to the outside world. Scary stuff.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
…What you haven’t addressed are the consequences of giving up…
[/quote]
Our troops stop dying.
The only way that makes sense is if you assume that our presence there has somehow delayed or retarded chaos in some meaningful way. Why should I believe that?
Any democratic government of Iraq is very likely to be regime hostile to the US. They don’t like us, Scylla. There is no reason they should.
You are either in favor of democracy, or you are not. In this instance, democracy very likely means a government with considerable resemblance to a Shia theocracy.